Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |    

Limited Scope of Interference under Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitral Award in Financial Dispute

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling that reaffirms the sanctity of arbitration proceedings, the Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging an Arbitral Award in a financial dispute involving Arjun Mall Retail Holdings Pvt Ltd and Gunocean Inc. The bench, comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, upheld the Arbitral Award dated 20.02.2019, which had directed the appellants to pay substantial sums with interest and costs to the respondent.

The judgment, pronounced on January 23, 2024, emphasized the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards. The Court observed, "Under Section 34 of the Act, scope of interference by the courts is very limited and only if there is any patent illegality in the Arbitral Award, then only it is required to be touched upon" (Para 35). This statement highlights the judiciary's respect for the arbitration process and its outcomes, provided they adhere to legal standards and public policy.

The dispute originated from a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) executed between the parties, involving financial transactions and commission payments. The appellants, Arjun Mall Retail Holdings Pvt Ltd, and its directors faced allegations of defaulting on payments as per the MoU. Responding to these allegations, the appellants contended that the MoU was forged, and the Arbitral Award violated public policy. However, these claims were dismissed by the Court, which found no evidence of forgery or violation of public policy norms.

The respondent, Gunocean Inc., accused the appellants of habitual defaulting and making false averments. The Court noted the appellants' history of legal troubles and found no merit in their challenge to the Arbitral Award.

This decision is a testament to the Indian judiciary's approach towards arbitration as a mode of dispute resolution. By limiting its intervention to cases of patent illegality, the Court has sent a strong message about its commitment to uphold the decisions made within the arbitration framework, respecting the autonomy of the arbitration process.

Date of Decision: 23 January 2024

ARJUN MALL RETAIL HOLDINGS PVT LTD & ORS. VS  GUNOCEN INC.

Similar News